|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 4, 2009 22:39:57 GMT
archive.org shows that paragraph was added between June 2007 and January 2008, it wasn't in the original text. Thats really weak evidence Socold! In Jan 2005 this was on the page: "In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño." So you think the kid didn't try to beef up his webpage? Obviously as far back as the archive goes he was saying essentially the same thing. Who knows? Maybe Gavin was riding the kid in 2007 and the kid went and stuck more on the page to stick it in Gavin's ear. Maybe then Gavin left figuring the hitrates on the page were low until somebody bugged him about it on RC then he went and deleted the little buggers page. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 5, 2009 5:01:57 GMT
James Hansen on Climate Tipping Points and Political Leadership by James Hansen - Jul 15th, 2009 solveclimate.com/blog/20090715/james-hansen-climate-tipping-points-and-political-leadership ... in which he says: What science has revealed in the past few years is that the safe level of carbon dioxide in the long run is no more than 350 ppm. The optimum CO2 level to support civilization may be less than 350 ppm, but more precise knowledge is not needed immediately for the purpose of establishing present policies.Does anyone know where the evidence is to support the 350ppm "safe level" statement? |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Nov 5, 2009 11:58:03 GMT
There is none save mayby something from their models.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 5, 2009 15:14:55 GMT
archive.org shows that paragraph was added between June 2007 and January 2008, it wasn't in the original text. Thats really weak evidence Socold! In Jan 2005 this was on the page: "In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño." So you think the kid didn't try to beef up his webpage? Obviously as far back as the archive goes he was saying essentially the same thing. I have no doubt it's the same person. I am just saying the part about 1934 was added in 2008. The paragraph about the satellite record showing no warming was not corrected. The inclusion of that statement in 2008 could only have come from a few sources, none of them scientific. Eg: www.dailytech.com/Blogger%20Finds%20Y2K%20Bug%20in%20NASA%20Climate%20Data/article8383.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 8, 2009 8:15:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pacman on Mar 3, 2010 23:38:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pacman on Mar 3, 2010 23:44:10 GMT
I meant Professor Bob Carter - sorry for the typo.
Pacman
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 5, 2010 15:46:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 5, 2010 16:04:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Dec 5, 2010 16:10:00 GMT
You know, I found it more interesting where he said... "Tipping points occur because of amplifying feedbacks… Climate-related feedbacks include loss of Arctic sea ice, melting ice sheets and glaciers, and release of frozen methane as tundra melts." This is an important thing to note. Tipping points are VERY special. Once a tipping point is hit feedbacks are high and there are rapid changes. The only problem is, they're claiming feedbacks are ALREADY high. There is not going to be some ultra-super-duper-mega-tipping point. Either the earth has been in high feedback mode the whole holocene (obviously not) or feedbacks ARE NOT HIGH and we can't have much warming. |
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Dec 5, 2010 20:10:11 GMT
I am going to find a cheap used copy of that pos book and make myself read it and deconstruct it. The bits I read from the review are devastatingly bad. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 5, 2010 23:11:04 GMT
He's a bit extreme, but the strawmen were tedius... talk of mass executions and suicides. Planned Parenthood is more the operating model. Perhaps some tax incentives to not have kids? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 5, 2010 23:43:52 GMT
He's a bit extreme, but the strawmen were tedius... talk of mass executions and suicides. Planned Parenthood is more the operating model. Perhaps some tax incentives to not have kids? Planned Parenthood is more the operating model. Perhaps some tax incentives to not have kids? So you support social engineering and Eugenics? Why am I not surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 6, 2010 3:36:59 GMT
He's a bit extreme, but the strawmen were tedius... talk of mass executions and suicides. Planned Parenthood is more the operating model. Perhaps some tax incentives to not have kids? Planned Parenthood is more the operating model. Perhaps some tax incentives to not have kids? So you support social engineering and Eugenics? Why am I not surprised. LOLOLOLOLOLOL - you stretched wayyyyyy too far there |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 6, 2010 3:47:33 GMT
Planned Parenthood is more the operating model. Perhaps some tax incentives to not have kids? So you support social engineering and Eugenics? Why am I not surprised. LOLOLOLOLOLOL - you stretched wayyyyyy too far there That depends. If you are serious about tax incentives to not have kids, that is social engineering in its base form. Planned Parenthood is all about Eugenics. Do you doubt that? |
|
